memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
B'Edra ...is now a redirect to the novel she's from, but I don't think we should keep it. It started off as a fairly obvious "...is a Non-Canon character from the novel..." article, so the more "non-canon" lks. we have might confuse people. - AJ Halliwell 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': Hmm... it's been a full week and no one's yet to vote on these. Wasn't it decided, though, that we would keep non-canon redirects? --From Andoria with Love 03:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :Comment: I'm personally in favour of removing all of the non-canon links, but the consensus seems to be to keep a number of them. I've added all of the above (with descriptions), but not the "B'Edra" one. One issue with that one is that there is no description of her on the novel's page. That and I think that she's only in that one book to date. -- Sulfur 03:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Door Are we so desperate for new articles that we now have to define everyday objects? No matter how much some creative individual dolls up this page, we are still not a dictionary. Period. --Alan del Beccio 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': I agree we are not a dictionary, but there is a lot of door technology seen in Star Trek. Perhaps it would be good to havean article that talks about them. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC) **'Keep' the door is one of the most memorable pieces of technology trek writers have come up with. If you want to start scrapping pointless articles start elsewhere... perhaps with paper. Jaf 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Jaf * Comment - Maybe a page on "Door Technology"? or "Automatic Doors" or something. Cause there was all the times the door would react funny to someone walking to it, and plenty of Alien-looking doors, plus that weird door in "Pen Pals." But "Door" does kinda give the wrong impression...- 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Clothing ;Shoe ;Hat ;Sun glasses OK, this is getting out of hand. We have articles about uniforms. Maybe we can have a single article about other clothing, but this is just nuts --OuroborosCobra talk 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC) *I'm still going to go with keeping this stuff, it's my opinion that everything ever in trek should eventually be compiled. However, I get why this stuff might annoy some people, so if we have to let it go we should create some kind of policy on what goes and what stays, because there are endless articles like this, spoon for example. Jaf 18:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Jaf *Maybe not keep them, but they should be merged (with entirely different content) into other articles. IE: Guinans hats should one day have a page, maybe "El-Aurian Fasion"? And the ENT crews hats should be on their uniform page somewhere. As are their sunglasses, which were referenced in a couple episodes (include "The Forge", where Archer offers T'Pol his sunglasses, and she mentions the extra eyelid...) But shoe may be completely useless. so Revamp and merge. - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Klingon Vessel ;D-4 Battle Cruiser Allow me to quote the first sentence, "A hypothetical Klingon vessel..." Need I say more? - AJ Halliwell 03:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', hypotheticals scare me... --OuroborosCobra talk 07:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 05:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 747 An article for the Boeing 747 was started here, but I moved it to the proper location. I would normally say it is worth leaving the re-direct, but I am not sure in this case. Most articles that are just numbers are years, for example 2367. Do we want to have one that isn't, and is instead a redirect to another article? --OuroborosCobra talk 16:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :Comment - if you're going to move and then put the redirect up for deletion, at least move the links pointing to said redirect. :) I've done that now. -- Sulfur 16:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ::Whoops, didn't think any had been created. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :Keep and return the article to 747 using Boeing 747 as a redirect as previously. A disambiguation notice (such as on 47) it should be sufficient to get visitors to early history if they're looking for that year, not that anything significant in the Star Trek universe happened in that year. Additionally, the plane was never referred to as a "Boeing 747" in dialogue, just as a "747." While it's relatively certain this refers to the B747, we shouldn't make that assumption. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 05:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC) *'Keep, return, year-note.' Agree w/SmokeDetector. - AJ Halliwell 04:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Star Trek: Of Gods and Men ;Star Trek: Of Gods and Men Merge with Fan films and Delete. As per our usual argument against fan films getting their own article, no matter how many Star Trek actors appear in it... (For the record, wouldn't this be listed under "Of Gods..." not "Star Trek: Of Gods..."?) - AJ Halliwell 20:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC) :*'Merge' and Delete, as per how we have done this in the past. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC) :*'merge', and at best redirect as per the new voyages that was done earlier this week. -- Sulfur 21:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Temporal displacement policy Article is uncited, and according to the discussion page, the info comes from the novel Federation. Therefore I feel it is non-canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete. If the Temporal Prime Directive page is so "weak" as he claims, I'm curious why he didn't just edit it. If there's anything that can be taken from the page that is canon, merge that info. If possible seperate it from the non-canon info and put that in an apocrypha section. - AJ Halliwell 20:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC) * Keep The content is entirely wrong, but Bashir used the term in "Past Tense, Part I". The notes on it on the "Trials and Tribble-ations" & "Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night" make the assumption Sisko was referring to it. -- Tough Little Ship 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC) *Changed to Keep, I did some weeding and cleaned it up. Though the word-for-word usage of it in TaT and WDTDoN should be looked into. - AJ Halliwell 21:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC) *Change my vote (or whatever you call the thing the person nominating gets) to keep, since it was actually used in canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Combat date This article is entirely italics, describing a small aspect on an alternate timeline (from Yesterday's Enterprise). Since it appears to be the alternate timeline version of stardate, I suggest that it be merged with stardate, and then made into a re-direct to stardate. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC) * Comment. Just because something took place entirly in an alternate timeline, doesn't mean it shouldn't be kept. Andrew Kim, for example, hasn't been merged with Kes and Harry Kim. - AJ Halliwell 04:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) * Yeah, I'm gonna have to say keep this one, since they're really two different things (unlike, say, Natasha Yar and the former Natasha Yar (alternate)). --From Andoria with Love 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) *"Merges" (=no real deletion involved) don't need to be brought up on the "Votes for deletion" page, so if that is the suggestion, it doesn't really need to be discussed here. However, I agree with the comment that we don't need separate articles for basically the same thing with different names. Merge & Redirect is the best solution in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Military log Same as combat date, except should be merged and made a redirect to Captain's log. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC) *Hmm... again, I gotta go with keep, although I will certainly understand if others vote for it being merged (and might even change my vote to agree). --From Andoria with Love 11:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) *'Merge & Redirect' (and see comment regarding Combat date above). -- Cid Highwind 11:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Rettick Unused redirect, though apparently StarTrek.com uses it. Keep as redirect, or delete? Delete. - AJ Halliwell 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC) *Based on StarTrek.coms talk page, it may come up for deletion soon. If that is the case, delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) *I guess it is used on www.startrek.com, not our article startrek.com? In that case, the possible deletion of that article shouldn't play any role in this decision. Since redirects help finding an article, and that misspelling is apparently used on the official homepage, I don't see any problem with keeping this one. -- Cid Highwind 15:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Template:Sourceless It's an unused redirect to Template:pna-cite. Do we really need it? I've noticed a plethora of these new templates or redirects that do the same thing as existing pna templates popping up of late. Why? -- Sulfur 12:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) :I found one Wikia that uses this template title as well as some of the other recent creations with a similar or same wording/categorization. Probably, users of that Wikia are trying to put the same nomenclature to use here. This isn't especially harmful, but it isn't necessary either. Since keeping this redirect could lead to some confusion later on, I vote to delete this. -- Cid Highwind 13:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)